P
Phil Hobbs
Guest
On 2020-04-23 00:31, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
You're uninformed, I'm afraid. The PTO has a strong adversarial system,
where the examiner tries to shoot down even good patents, believe me.
Thing is, when you're processing hundreds of thousands of patents per
year (335,000 were granted in 2019), in a zillion technical areas, the
demands being made on examiners aren't trivial. Nobody can be expert in
everything. I've had some arguments with examiners that went back and
forth through four separate office actions, and took years to grant.
Having said that, if you're granting that many patents, some real dogs
are bound to get through.
There are two kinds of reviews that aren't court cases, and are very
widely used: the _inter partes_ review (IPR) and _ex parte_
reexamination (EPR). Both are much cheaper than district court cases,
with EPRs being much cheaper than IPRs, because the requester doesn't
have to pay for a lawyer--the patent office just re-examines the patent.
Filing one of those is $6,000 IIRC. I've done four IPRs, I think.
The other advantage to those PTO proceedings is that in a district court
there's a strong presumption that an issued patent is valid, so proving
invalidity is an uphill battle. That's reasonable, because companies
often invest a lot of money in practicing their patents, and need secure
property rights. It's just the same as renovating a factory--you need
to be sure it's really yours or the investment makes no sense.
In a PTO proceeding, that presumption doesn't exist. That was one of
the main reasons that many folks opposed the rule changes bitterly--it
allows administrators to take away a property right with no compensation
and no recourse, which on its face is unconstitutional. (Some finessing
had to be done.)
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com
You're uninformed, I'm afraid. The PTO has a strong adversarial system,
where the examiner tries to shoot down even good patents, believe me.
Thing is, when you're processing hundreds of thousands of patents per
year (335,000 were granted in 2019), in a zillion technical areas, the
demands being made on examiners aren't trivial. Nobody can be expert in
everything. I've had some arguments with examiners that went back and
forth through four separate office actions, and took years to grant.
Having said that, if you're granting that many patents, some real dogs
are bound to get through.
There are two kinds of reviews that aren't court cases, and are very
widely used: the _inter partes_ review (IPR) and _ex parte_
reexamination (EPR). Both are much cheaper than district court cases,
with EPRs being much cheaper than IPRs, because the requester doesn't
have to pay for a lawyer--the patent office just re-examines the patent.
Filing one of those is $6,000 IIRC. I've done four IPRs, I think.
The other advantage to those PTO proceedings is that in a district court
there's a strong presumption that an issued patent is valid, so proving
invalidity is an uphill battle. That's reasonable, because companies
often invest a lot of money in practicing their patents, and need secure
property rights. It's just the same as renovating a factory--you need
to be sure it's really yours or the investment makes no sense.
In a PTO proceeding, that presumption doesn't exist. That was one of
the main reasons that many folks opposed the rule changes bitterly--it
allows administrators to take away a property right with no compensation
and no recourse, which on its face is unconstitutional. (Some finessing
had to be done.)
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com